Monday, 3 April 2017

One of the major selling points used to sell weary Canadians on
the necessity of mass (third world) immigration is that without it our ageing
demographic will sink the economy and consequently our standard of living. However, a study published this year by two MIT economists challenges this conventional wisdom; that an aging population negatively
affects a country’s economic growth leading to lowered GDP per capita and what
is termed “secular stagnation.” On the
contrary they conclude that there is “no such negative relationship in the
data” and that “countries experiencing more rapid aging have grown more in
recent decades.”

It’s a short study (only 10 pages) but
the tl;dr version of it simply states that the reason they found no negative
correlation between a country’s aging society and its economic output is that
the economy adapted to it by implementing labour saving technology.

It’s a timely study considering the AI revolution looming on
the horizon and one Canadian government officials should know about. If Canada’s labour market challenges can be
met with algorithms it makes no sense to keep shoveling people into the country
who will in time become redundant, superfluous, surplus labour dependent of
some form of government aid. And considering immigration isn't even effective at marginally reversing an ageing demographic trend, for the simple reason that immigrants age too, I think it's more reasonable to look at technology, not immigrants, as the proper response to it.

Tuesday, 14 March 2017

We don’t need a self-promoting blowhard telling us how
mediocre Justin Trudeau’s cabinet is. I
think it does a pretty good job of speaking for itself. When you have a former ski instructor and
substitute drama teacher of generational wealth possessing an undeserved sense of
self-importance acting as the effective “leader” of your country what can you
expect? We’re not talking Winston
Churchill here. More like Kim Jong Un
minus all that evil stuff. However it’s
worth noting his reason for saying it which is to pursue diversity for
diversity sake you sacrifice competency and inevitably quality producing an
inferior outcome to what you could have had. When diversity is your maxim you’re practically capitulating to being second best almost all the time. In fact, "diversity means second (or even last) place" is truer to reality than "diversity is our strength" which is more at home in ideological fantasy-land.

And I could stop there because I think it’s so
self-evident that diversity is mediocrity that elaboration is not needed. I guess I could provide some examples.

New York state is planning on scrapping a literacy test it used to screen teachers because too many minorities, primarily blacks and Hispanics, were failing it. This means the standards of the New York state education system will suffer as will the education of the pupils forced to be taught by unqualified teachers. All for the sake of diversity.

Journalistic standards have been further diminished by the diversity agenda. Ever cognizant of the effect their words may have on the minds of the reading public journalists have engaged in self-censorship and spin when reporting the news. Objectivity and truth have given way to misinformation, half-truths, or just spiking a story if it doesn't conform to the "diversity is our strength" narrative. This has created a demoralized journalistic class and the misleading of the public by contributing to its collective ignorance.

Diversity provides a great cover to mask the more pressing social concern which is incomeinequality. This is why the ruling class love it so much. Diversity isn't a threat to the power structure so long as they can control it and contain its ill effects to the lower classes. This is one of my main criticisms of diversity and multiculturalism, it's partner in crime. They're frivolous concerns we can live without (and have done so before quite nicely, thank you) but make convenient political distractions to keep us from speaking about what really matters to us and making real social progress. Diversity and multiculturalism are wastes of our time.

"Diversity is our strength" is a stupid slogan. You can easily say the opposite and it
still rings true. That’s because diversity
is an abstract noun that needs clarification and "diversity is our strength” is a
slogan that needs qualifying. We need
to know what kind of diversity we’re talking about to decide whether or not it’s
a strength because I don’t think a diversity of diseases is a strength. And just saying “diversity is our strength”
without backing that statement up doesn’t make it true.

So what kind of diversity are we talking about?

Are we talking about racial diversity? How is that our strength? How does one’s particular skin colour endow that person with unique skills and talents that that can’t be replicated by others
of a different racial composition? How
does one’s skin colour bestow gifts unto the society they happen to inhabit? If we’re honest with ourselves we can see
that racial diversity is not our strength.
It’s pursued more as a moral obligation if anything while ignoring all of the undesirable social
problems it creates. Indeed,
racial diversity is bullshit!

Is religious diversity our strength? Do I need to go there?

How about cultural diversity? That I can agree with but a cultural
diversity that is produced domestically not a cultural diversity fabricated by governmental decree under the guise of multiculturalism which entails the importation and promotion
of foreign cultures in a domestic setting.
The latter has the effect of culturally colonizing a people and marginalizing or even erasing their cultural existence altogether. I doubt very much the First Nations peoples of Canada celebrate the cultural diversity brought to them by the European
settlers. Likewise, Canadians today don’t give two
flying f**ks about Diwali, Eid, Khalsa, Chinese New Year, Cinco de Mayo, or
what have you. We don’t celebrate these
things because they’re not Canadian cultural traditions and we don’t have much
of an interest in them in the first place.
In fact, the imposition of these foreign practices onto the collective cultural
psyche of the nation elicits mostly irritation instead of celebration.

The diversity of ideas is our strength. It promotes forward thinking allowing societies
to grow philosophically, scientifically, technologically, politically,
culturally, and socially. You can’t
have freedom and democracy without the uninhibited flow of ideas. However the Canadian government thinks the
diversity of ideas is a weakness so it must be constrained through legislation,
vague “hate crime” laws, and an Orwellian kangaroo court system called Human
Rights Tribunals.

So there you have it.
Out of all the diversity the government chooses to promote it champions
the ones that inherently make us weaker while actively suffocating the one that
makes us stronger. Welcome to the New
Canada folks.

Diversity is, for the most part, mediocrity. This is why professional sports teams don't give it much consideration when recruiting talent. When quality takes a back seat to the ideological driven agenda of diversity you're looking at second, third, fourth, or even last place. While corporations have deep enough pockets to eat the costs of diversity professional sports teams use a business model that necessitates the need to win games to maximize profits. And if a roster of mostly all white males is needed to take you to the championship game then so be it.

And in the realm of politics, particularly Canadian politics where you're already starting with one of the greatest collections of the most mediocre men and women society has to offer, letting diversity choose your cabinet ministers just increases the mediocrity factor twofold. So Kevin O'leary was just pointing out the obvious, vocalizing what everyone already knew.

Monday, 20 February 2017

Back in late October of 2016 Finance Minister Bill “there’s
no future for you” Morneau made comments at a meeting of the Liberal Party’s
Ontario wing basically telling Canadians there’s no future you. When asked to clarify these comments a few
days later at a youth labour forum Prime Minister Trust Fund Man-Child reinforced what his finance
Minister said unwittingly giving a verbal middle-finger to the economic futures
of the youth across the country. Their
comments reveal that they’re aware of the weak labour market today and into the
years to come yet the governing Liberal Party has set immigration targets at a
base of 300,000 while indicating intentions of increasing it into the foreseeable
future. This is worrying as there are indicators
that would compel a more prudent government to exercise a conservative approach
to immigration.

The poor performance of men in the job market should sound
alarm bells. Men are typically attracted
to higher paying jobs whereas women tend to concentrate in lower paying
occupations (which is why there is a wage gap).
If men are performing poorly it means well paying occupations are
disappearing.

Mass immigration may have worked at particular times in the
nation’s history but as PM Potato Head likes to remind us “it’s current
year.” Times are different. We're living in a period of low growth, low income, record debt, high unemployment, and high deficits. Mass immigration is a twentieth century
program that hasn’t been updated to reflect the realities of the
twenty-first. After all, if the Prime
Minister and his finance Minister know the labour market is weak and precarious
employment is the new norm then what future do they think these immigrants will have in Canada if they essentially told Canadians they don’t have economic
futures themselves?

Tuesday, 7 February 2017

Probably not. Life's too good here compared to countries created by Muslims. They'll want us to double-down on the Muslim immigration while attacking our cherished Canadian value of free speech with anti-blasphemy laws so Canada becomes more hospitable for Muslims while becoming more inhospitable for the rest of us.

And their exodus from Canada is the apt punishment this "Islmaphobic" country deserves. When Muslims leave Canada and take all their, uh, stuff, I guess (I was going to say contributions but we all know there aren't any) then we'll be sorry.

They can think of it as a learning experience. The intolerance they encountered here will grant them the perspective they'll need to champion for the basic human rights denied non-Muslims in Muslim majority countries. It's where their pleas for pluralism, tolerance, and acceptance are needed the most because it's obvious Muslims are so concerned about the basic human rights of religious minorities everywhere in the world expect, of course, in Muslim countries.

So, Muslims, sorry things couldn't work out. We tried our best but it turns out our relationship was doomed from the start. Don't feel bad. It's not you. It's us, I swear.

Monday, 23 January 2017

The CBC published a story about a Syrian refugee family in Nova Scotia who found success and self sufficiency one year on after arriving in
the province. They did so by starting a
small family run chocolatier business in the community of Antigonish that now
employs ten people. It’s a Syrian
refugee “success story” that attracted the attention of Justin Trudeau who
referenced their entrepreneurship at the UN as an example of Canada’s welcoming
spirit and the rewards refugees and immigrants bring to the country. It’s an awesome feel good story. So what about the other 39,499 Syrian refugees?

This is an example of cherry picking. It’s a logical fallacy where favourable
examples are given particular attention to support one’s argument but those
that invalidate it are conveniently ignored and swept under the rug.

It’s one of the more common logical fallacies one encounters
in debates and comment sections of internet articles. When one employs this fallacy they typically
do so by stating “My neighbour from India…” or “I work with someone from
China…” or “My doctor is a Muslim…” or statements of that nature. Not only are their debate points anecdotal but
are also isolated cherry picked examples that can’t be used to argue the
successes or failings of the immigration and refugee systems. If all it takes is one positive story to show
“the system works” then I guess the Toronto Police Services most wanted page
irrefutably shows that it doesn’t.

One Syrian refugee family finding success in Canada is not a
validation that the government’s approach to the Syrian refugee crisis was the
correct one (or proof that our refugee system in general is not a lax mess of a
system that doesn’t help legitimate refugees for the most part and is of little
benefit to the country). It’s just a
story of a Syrian family who came to Canada as refugees and started a small
business in Nova Scotia. And that’s it!

Cherry picking is a cheap and easy debate tactic. It’s meant to lead one to agree to a
preconceived conclusion based on a select sample size. In this case the CBC and Justin Trudeau want
us to believe that because this Syrian refugee family found success all
immigrants and refugees will do so as well by implication. It’s just a matter of time. But though this one Syrian refugee family
found success in the country it’s realistic to assume others probably
won’t. Indeed, perhaps hundreds if not
thousands of Syrian refugees will not find an adequate foothold in the country
at all, lingering in economic limbo contributing to Canada’s ever growing
immigrant underclass like the tens of thousands of immigrants and refugees who
came before them.

By the way, rumour has it the Liberal Party of Canada is the chocolate factory's biggest customer. If that's true then this "success story" was paid for by the LPC.

And I didn't think it was possible for things to get worse but then again the talent pool in Ottawa at the moment, especially within the LPC, may very well be the worst it's ever been. Politics tends to attract the most mediocre society has to offer.

In related news Mexican refugee claims jump after visa requirement dropped. I think we can file this one under "Who the f**k didn't see that coming!?" The Conservatives didn't slap a visa requirement on Mexico because they felt their media fueled image as racist meanies needed confirmation. They had adult reasons for doing so. This Liberal government, on the other hand, functions more like a Toronto high-school student council than as the national assembly of a G7 country. It's like the parents are away and they're throwing a house party. And with the appoint of Ahmed Hussen to the immigration file we can expect the whole of the third world to crash it.

Tuesday, 3 January 2017

The PMO released a pre-recorded, canned New Year’s address
from JustinSandiego as if anyone in the nation gave a shit. I didn’t listen to it and I doubt very few
people did either however I’m sure it was chock-full of Justin’s characteristic
jargon that can turn any Trudeau speech into a drinking game. Which reminds me, are you a consummate
alcoholic? Do you consider yourself a
political junky as well? Or do you just
like to get drunk and find drinking games the most fun way to do it? Well, if you can stand the sight and sound of
Canada’s dorky Prime Minister for more than five seconds then I have a drinking
game for you.

It’s apparent our idiot of a PM can’t give a speech or
interview without dropping one of the many progressive buzzwords that has come
to define his fabricated political brand of the nu-male image. I doubt he can order a Big Mac at McDonald’s
without mentioning how the depletion of the Amazon rain forest contributes to
climate change. Only to then down that high
caloric, high fat sandwich like the hypocrite all narcissists are.
Maybe he eats two because he cashed in one of those “buy one, get one”
coupons from those McDonald’s booklets we find littering our
mailboxes every month or so. Or maybe he
doesn’t because he doesn’t want to hurt that middle-aged dad-bod physique of his that makes him “sexy” for some reason. Eh, whatever.

So stream a Justin Trudeau talk or interview wherever you can find one and if he mentions “climate change” you take a drink. If he mentions “global warming” you take a
drink. If he says “equality” you take a
drink but if he mentions it along with “gender” or “racial” or “religious” you
take two drinks. If he mentions
“feminism” or “feminist” or anything eliciting gyno-centric favouritism you
take a drink. If he mentions “diversity”,
“tolerance”, “acceptance”, “multiculturalism”, “inclusion” or “inclusiveness”
you take a drink. If he says “diversity
is our strength” or variations of that sentence you take two drinks. If he mentions “middle class” you take a
drink. And every time he says “Canada”
you take a drink because when he’s talking about Canada he’s really taking
about himself.

Nightmare mode: If
you find yourself still sober or not drunk enough and you’re determined to go
full-tilt inebriated then take a drink every time he punctuates his speech with
his characteristic “uhs” and “ahs.” You
know what I’m talking about don't you?
Those faggy inhales he does when he finishes a sentence or starts a
sentence or does in the middle of sentence that, if you’re like me, drives you
up the f**king wall? Yeah, that thing! Go on and take a drink every time he does that but
I must caution you you’re courting alcohol poising if you do. Have some charcoal on hand just in case.

I’m not a drinker myself but I’m tempted to take it up. I don’t see how I’m going to last then next
three years sober. 2016 was a tough one.